This REALLY bothers you a LOT, doesn't it?
Nobody cares about high school once they're out.
She's valedictorian.Whatever college she gets offered an academic scholarship to isn't going to care if she said "hell" in high school. It isn't the stupid paper diploma..it's her grades they consider.
College and the business world are for adults. (normal) Adults are able to put things in perspective

It bothers me a child who knows she was wrong can't take 5 minutes to apologize yes. Its a symptom of what is wrong with this country when we excuse it.

It bothers me a child who knows she was wrong can't take 5 minutes to apologize yes. Its a symptom of what is wrong with this country when we excuse it.

Lowered morals are more of an indication of "what is wrong with this country" than a teenager (adult? was she eighteen?) saying "hell".
Your manufactured indignation and continuous harangue is out of proportion to the (non) event.

Your control/power issues are reflected in the use of a swastika in your "gay pride" flag, however.

In the case of Bethel v. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could punish high school senior Matthew Fraser for giving a speech before the student assembly that contained lewd references.6 In his speech, Fraser nominated classmate Jeff Kuhlman for a student government office. The speech contained numerous sexual references. In court, Fraser argued that a speech nominating another classmate for a student elective office was entitled to as much protection as the black armbands in Tinker. The high court disagreed, distinguishing his "vulgar" speech during a school-sponsored event from the pure "political" speech in the Tinker decision.

In its opinion, the court majority stated that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings."7 Instead, the high court set up a balancing test: "the freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior."8

The high court added: "Surely, it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse."9

You didn't answer my question. I'm fully aware of Tinker and its progeny, showing that schools can in some instances regulate the "speech" or symbolic speech of their students, considering I teach a unit on the First Amendment in my Con Law class (albeit to undergrads).

What I'm asking for is (1) the rule of this school, stating that "hell" is considered a vulgar word, and (2) the proof that she was aware, or should have been aware, of that rule.

A Supreme Court case stating that schools can in some instances create a rule prohibiting certain language is not, under any circumstances, equivalent to showing that this school, in fact, created such a rule prohibiting use of the word "hell".

Since you allege that she "violat[ed] the rules on profanity," you (still) need to show that such a rule exists.

You would do well to pay attention to the questions people actually ask, instead of thinking you know the question and rushing to throw out an answer, with copius insults and personal attacks tacked on in arrogance.But since you bring up Tinker, Bethel v. Fraser, and the like, I have an additional query: Since there's no doubt the language used in Fraser which subjected the student to punishment was far coarser and was deliberately designed to be disruptive (read the case), why don't you explain to me, in light of Fraser (and the subsequent, and much more applicable Morse v. Frederick), how you think the Court would rule in this case, and why?

I'll help you out by giving you my answer: I think the Court would rule in the student's favor. I say this in light of Morse, and also in light of Fox v. FCC, which disapproved the FCC's "fleeting explatives" rule, albeit on other grounds (Fifth Amendment). I think Morse and Fraser are clearly distinguishable from this situation. In both cases, the students were punished for behavior that was designed to be disruptive, and in the case of Fraser, actually was disruptive. In this case, there's no doubt the student's utterance of the word "hell" was not disruptive, and pretty much no doubt she didn't design it to be - you seem to agree it was a "mistake."

And, really, the whole "pretend to be a lawyer" thing is ridiculous. Really, it's just your way of avoiding the actual fact that you've been proven wrong so many times. What do you want? A picture of my admittance certificate? My office number? Law school diploma? Trust me when I say there's no way you end up looking like anything other than a fool and a joke if you keep going down this road, seeing as how I can absolutely show I'm an attorney, since I am one.

It bothers me a child who knows she was wrong can't take 5 minutes to apologize yes. Its a symptom of what is wrong with this country when we excuse it.

I think you're missing the point of the objection. It should have taken 5 seconds to apologise; Principal: "You shouldn't have said 'hell' in your speech." Student: "I know, it was a mistake. I'm sorry", The End.

The problem is the alleged gross over-reaction of the principal in immediately demanding a written apology and the blackmail of refusing the diploma. That seems totally out of line in the context of the "offence" and wouldn't achieve anything meaningful even if it was successful (what's the point of a forced apology?). I think it's perfectly legitimate for this student to stand up to what appears an abuse of power for the good of all other students under the principal's authority.

Like other posters, I'd also be interested to know if the principal was applying specific rules or working completely at his discretion.

Of note from the story, the writer apparently contacted the State Schools Department, to ask whether, under Oklahoma law, the school had any right to react this way. They said the school has no right to withhold her transcript.

The girl's attorney says, "According to the school’s own rules, there’s only two grounds to withhold a diploma and that is vandalism, clearly no one says that she engaged in vandalism, and the other is if she had some sort of unpaid fee like a library book or something else."

So, looks like her attorney read the school's own handbook or graduation rules or whatever, and found that what she did was not against the rules that would allow them to withhold her diploma.

Of note from the story, the writer apparently contacted the State Schools Department, to ask whether, under Oklahoma law, the school had any right to react this way. They said the school has no right to withhold her transcript.

The girl's attorney says, "According to the school’s own rules, there’s only two grounds to withhold a diploma and that is vandalism, clearly no one says that she engaged in vandalism, and the other is if she had some sort of unpaid fee like a library book or something else."

So, looks like her attorney read the school's own handbook or graduation rules or whatever, and found that what she did was not against the rules that would allow them to withhold her diploma.

This is going to end badly for the school district, I suspect.

Thank you for your research and for putting this beaten horse out of its' misery.
I've never seen so much fake outrage over such an insignificant, trivial non event...